noxin said:
I'm just thinking out loud here, but if the VR really reduced image quality would they be using it on the large tele professional lenses? Or does it reduce the quality such a small amount that the trade-off is worth it?

When VR is "off", all elements are in the optical axis. There is then no optical penalty to pay. If VR is "on", the VR element may find itself out of axis. This creates MINOR compromises. To minimize those, the VR element gets centered the instant the shutter is about to be released, so that even that small compromise starts from the best possible position. The main worry on a supertele is chroma-aberration (hence the ED glass). Chroma-aberration is not affected in first or second order by an out-of-axis element. Therefore, I would not worry about compromises on anything above 100mm. On the wideangle side, astigmatism, field curvature, vignetting, straight-line distortion etc. are the challenges (hence the three aspherical lenses in the 14-24mm), which means that an out-of-axis VR element constitutes a larger compromise.

Why would you want VR at f1.2 on a 50mm lens?!? At that aperture "blurry" shots are more likely to result from the narrow depth of field then from camera shake.

Noxin I think tangent is right and VR compromises optic quality in the $$$ sense. So that's why those pro zooms are so expensive. Everything has a trade-off I suppose.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but if the VR really reduced image quality would they be using it on the large tele professional lenses? Or does it reduce the quality such a small amount that the trade-off is worth it?

studio460 said:
Here's what I'm hoping for:

1. AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 VR.
2. AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 VR.

A 50mm f/1.2 with VR is likely outside of the capabilities of the F-mount. As the aperture gets larger, the rear element has to grow as well. There have been threads here that discusssed the difficulties of fitting any f/1.2 into the F-mount, whose "real estate" has become smaller (compared to the original 1959 version) by the addition of those 10 contact points to transmit AF power, AF data, distance, focal length etc). Do not overlook that VR works by shifting an internal element out of axis. For these shifted rays to clear the rear element, it needs to be bigger still.
The 85mm 1.4 will have similar problems, although to a lesser extend, because the rear element can be moved out a bit, where it interferes less with the contact points. If I were a betting man, I would say that the 85 will come out with VR (but at a steep price, because there are a lot of conflicting issues to be solved that require extra complexity) and I am absolutely convinced that any f/1.2 has no space left for the extra-large rear element of a VR-equipped construction.

A while ago I was discussing the lack of VR on the 24-70, i think on photo.net. Someone suggested that the inclusion of VR in a lens often entailed some optical compromises, so unless it's absolutely necessary (longer focal lengths hand held at 1/20s and below) lens designers would rather leave it out, instead opting for absolute IQ under ideal conditions. Not sure if this is true, or whether it's more a question of the extra expense that VR would represent, and the compromises that would then HAVE to be made optically, in order to keep costs down.

Personally I shoot pretty happily down at 1/30s or 1/20s handheld with the 24-70, at 70mm, which is more than enough for me. A lot of the time i'm shooting people anyway, and movement blur is an issue even during candid-style shooting at those speeds. I'm also lucky enough to have a D3s though, so i've got plenty of ISO latitude available. I appreciate that not everyone is in that situation!

Nice, Arron. That looks like a fun lens.

you would've needed a monopod regardless for a shot like that, so. . .

The image below was shot at 0.8 seconds on a monopod (about 5x longer than 1/6th of a second), without the benefit of VR. But I still would've rather had VR than not:

1/6th second, hand held 10.5mm fisheye
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/4670028425_d2f6a0a695_z.jpg

No need for vr there.

studio460 said:
Those were taken at the Aviation Blvd., above-ground stop of the Los Angeles "Metro," known here as the "MTA" (Metropolitan Transit Authority). MTA trains here are a combination of above- and below-ground, light-rail trains. The downtown station is completely underground, and is really beautiful. I shot a short film there once, and plan to take a model there to shoot one of my portfolio pieces soon.

All of the shots posted above were taken with a non-VR, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, but each shot was stopped-down between f/5.6-f/8 for greater depth-of-field. I wanted to go to f/11, but would have needed a tripod for that, and those aren't allowed on the platform.

For my 50mm, I'm using an older 'D' AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with a Nikon D90 body. The lens is fast enough, but I just don't like shooting above ISO 800 on this body. While my handheld technique is fairly polished, given a choice, I would rather have VR than not, regardless of focal length. I would actually absolutely love it if Nikon were to introduce an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 with VR someday. Although I still take a monopod everywhere I shoot, I really do enjoy the "freedom" VR facilitates.

Haha, I thought MTA as in NYC MTA.

Understandable, especially with the wide angle lenses. You really need to stop down, and there's nothing you can do about that except ask for VR or better ISO performance.

I still want Nikon to make a 24 or 18mm f/1.8 that's priced the same as the 35mm. I need something way wider. I could make do without VR, I'm used to that anyway.

A 50mm 1.2 VR ? The motor would need to be flat!

NSXType-R said:
Studio460- those don't look like subways. Are those PATH trains?

Those were taken at the Aviation Blvd., above-ground stop of the Los Angeles "Metro," known here as the "MTA" (Metropolitan Transit Authority). MTA trains here are a combination of above- and below-ground, light-rail trains. The downtown station is completely underground, and is really beautiful. I shot a short film there once, and plan to take a model there to shoot one of my portfolio pieces soon.

NSXType-R said:
Is the 50mm 1.4 not fast enough for you, or are you using an older Nikon body? Is that why you want the VR? Just push the ISO a bit. I've hand held with the 35mm 1.8 at 1/20th of a second with very good results. It's a hit and miss with anything really slower than that though.

All of the shots posted above were taken with a non-VR, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, but each shot was stopped-down between f/5.6-f/8 for greater depth-of-field. I wanted to go to f/11, but would have needed a tripod for that, and those aren't allowed on the platform.

For my 50mm, I'm using an older 'D' AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with a Nikon D90 body. The lens is fast enough, but I just don't like shooting above ISO 800 on this body. While my handheld technique is fairly polished, given a choice, I would rather have VR than not, regardless of focal length. I would actually absolutely love it if Nikon were to introduce an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 with VR someday. Although I still take a monopod everywhere I shoot, I really do enjoy the "freedom" VR facilitates.

Your still supposed to gain as much as 4 stops with VR according to Nikon if you can believe that information. I think its only more like 2 (really poor lighting), but with the wonders of ISO these days, I'm thinking the D3S in particular, VR almost seems like an afterthought.

Studio460- those don't look like subways. Are those PATH trains?

Is the 50mm 1.4 not fast enough for you, or are you using an older Nikon body? Is that why you want the VR? Just push the ISO a bit. I've hand held with the 35mm 1.8 at 1/20th of a second with very good results. It's a hit and miss with anything really slower than that though.

Yes VR is wonderful but I have a terrible habbit of forgetting to turn it off when my camera is mounted on a tripod. I still shoot mostly off a tripod and I'll bring it with me no matter where I go or what shooting I do. Love that carbon fiber! By the way, notice how Nikon's newest lens release the 24mm 1.4 didn't have VR added? This probably answers this topics original question, although I'm sure an 85mm VR prime will come out before this year is over. I'm actually surprised it hasn't come out already.

i love VR, I just don't know if Nikon will put it in fast glass below 70mm.

yes, makes sense for the 16-85/18-55/18-105/18-200 etc., but I'll be surprised if they feel photographers NEED it below 70mm as aggressively as we feel we do.

The sigma and tamron both now offer a 17-50 OS/VC option - maybe they'll wait to see how they fare for Nikon to proceed from a sales point?

Although I heard that the VC 17-50 isn't as sharp as the original - maybe the stabilization lens element is causing issues?

VR is not really a factor at shorter focal lengths to matter enough...

If you have a big enough camera (D90/300(s)/700 with grip, or a D3 type body), you can jam the camera into your shoulder/collarbone, wrap your left arm under the lens and grasp your shooting hand for extra stability, bunch up, inhale slowly, shoot. I've handheld @ 1/4 and 1/2 a second and gotten very respectable results given the circumstances. Having a heavier camera helps to nullify extraneous hand motion as well, which is why it's much easier to hold a Hasselblad or other MF SLR at slower speeds than featherweight D60.

heartyfisher said:
For the shorter end.. the only wide aperture option with VR are the third party ones.. Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC and sigma 17-70 F2.8-F4.0 OS both are quite well regarded.

Yeah, I was really torn between the totally cheap, Nikkor 18-55mm VR, and the totally expensive, Nikkor 16-85mm VR. I figured, I've got the Tokina 11-16mm UWA, so I'd only be using either Nikkor rather sparingly. But, if the Nikkor 16-85mm VR were less expensive, I would have totally gotten that instead. Also, even if I had the Nikkor 16-85mm VR, it's so slow between 50mm-85mm (where I want shallow depth-of-field more often anyway), that I would never really shoot it past its maximum wide angle. That lens would be slammed to its 16mm focal length, pretty much 100% of the time.

studio460 said:
Is there something inherent in large maximum-aperture lenses that make it more difficult to employ VR?

I think there may be ... I am just guessing but I think
1) the VR elements need to be larger so the vr engines need to move more glass.
2) The glass may have more degradation in image quality due to the larger vr lenses that move ie more of the edges are used instead of the centre of the VR elements.
3) The Large aperture lenses already have lots of Aspherical elements that help correct for coma its probably issues with this kinds of aberation to be corrected that is holding back the dev a bit.
4) And if you have a large aperture lens you expect it to have supurb IQ and the degradation is probably not acceptable to nikon.

kanuck said:
The rumored 35mm prime that I keep hearing about may have VR, but the Ais 1.4 version is spectacular if you can find one. The new 85mm should have VR for sure I think. VR should generally be just for zooms, but the 85, 105, 135, 180, and big 200,300 are great for portraits so VR makes sense there obviously. Good post studio460 :)

Thanks, kanuck--yes, I'm really hoping for that AF-S 85mm f/1.4G VR, but I what really want is the 105mm DC, which, unfortunately, probably won't be VR-ized anytime soon.

At least for me, I know that I would greatly benefit if every one of my lenses had VR. My ultra-wides, my normal, and all of my short telephotos could be exploited to their fullest with this extended capability. Although I just love my new Tokina ultra-wide angle, I would've loved if it also had image stabilization--it would just make certain shooting situations a whole helluva lot easier--here's a few examples:

Here I am, just an hour ago, shooting available-light with my new, non-VR Tokina, hanging onto my monopod for dear life, within inches of this speeding train. Exposing at a pokey 1/10th of a second (to capture some motion blur and depth-of-field), I was sitting on the ground Indian-style, with the monopod clutched between my ankles. I would have liked to have exposed for even longer, but nearby MTA police would have shooed me away, had I whipped out a tripod (below):

Another available-light, monopod shot at 1/10th of a second (below):

And last, here I am hanging off the wall, with my monopod wedged between the top of the handrail and the wall (below):

I remember hearing that Nikon was supposed to start competing with Canon's F4 image stabilization line with its own F4 VR products. I believe we have started seeing this with the spectacular 16-35 VR F4 lens. I have never understood why Nikon made the 105mm with VR because its a macro lens shot generally on tripod in manual focus mode for best results anyways right? Who needs the VR? I would love the 105mm D, but I went cheaper and just got the 105mm Ais manual.

The rumored 35mm prime that I keep hearing about may have VR, but the Ais 1.4 version is spectacular if you can find one. The new 85mm should have VR for sure I think. VR should generally be just for zooms, but the 85, 105, 135, 180, and big 200,300 are great for portraits so VR makes sense there obviously. Good post studio460 :)

studio460 said:
Well true, but then all the beauty of available-light photography would be lost, which is a lot of what I shoot.

If it's diffuse enough, sometimes you can barely tell.

clillja said:
My response to the OP would be no, not unless they make slower primes. I think all new short primes will be F1.4 w/ no VR. Unless Canon does it, then of course Nikon will.

Is there something inherent in large maximum-aperture lenses that make it more difficult to employ VR?

NSXType-R said:
With flash, I don't think you even need VR at all- isn't that one of the advantages of using flash, higher shutter speeds?

Well true, but then all the beauty of available-light photography would be lost, which is a lot of what I shoot.

If they can put VR in a $169 kit lens, they can sure put in a $XXX dollar 50mm f/1.2G lens. I really like that fat barrel to hold onto as well. The addition of VR allows you to make a TON of shots, that you couldn't, otherwise, without it. If they put in their normal and short telephotos, that would be a dream.

RobertD said:
I may have some disagree with me, but sharpness with any lens, VR or not, no matter what the shutter speed, is a product of proper shutter release and breath control.
Achieving sharp photographs under adverse conditions is identical to target shooting. Proper trigger release is everything. You can't get sharp photographs by jabbing the release button and you can't place a proper shot by jerking the trigger.
Another component of equal importance to be considered is breath control. As in shooting...take a deep breath, let half of it out, hold it then release the shutter/trigger. That technique has worked for me 40 some odd years now. JMHO

I don't diagree with you, but it's just that the point is, with the addition of VR, images can be made which would be impossible with out it. And, tripods are not always appropriate or convenient for every situation. Many of my shots are "stolen," and it would be either dangerous or disallowed if a tripod were to be used. Also, many venues have a "no tripod" policy (e.g., The Getty Museum, the MTA subway, etc.), but cameras, alone are "okay." In other words, yes, you can take pictures, but they don't want you to take "professional" pictures with a tripod, or cause any liability issues with other pedestrian traffic.

When I first got my 80-400mm VR, I almost fell of my chair when I snapped an image at 1/20th of a second at 400mm, and it was tack-sharp. No amount of breath control would service a shot under those conditions.